How is that book...I have been searching frantically for it on ebay and half.com. I have actually found it...but I confess I am being cheap.

Zonk,

I am enjoying it. I have learned a great deal about Prince Louis and his Battenberg family. In addition, I did not realize Queen Victoria was so fond of Victoria and how much she used Victoria to convey her feelings and wishes to other members of the royal family. In addition, the Queen was dismayed at Victoria's keen enjoyment of reading and how she questioned everything, which the Queen found to be annoying.

Don't forget to check out Amazon as well. That's where I found the book.

In his biography Edward VII: The Last Victorian King Christopher Hibbert refers to a declaration concerning the doctrine of transubstantiation which the King was supposed to make prior to reading the government's speech at the opening of Parliament.

What sort of statement was the King to make, and why would this religious issue be included in a secular event? Is this sort of thing still required/done?

Transubstantiation is a fundamental difference in belief between CoE and Roman Catholics. It is therefore important that the Supreme Governor of the Church of England promise to uphold that difference and the time to officially do it was at their first opening of Parliament and hence Edward did in in 1901.

The Church of England is still an established church, e.g. the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and at least 12 other bishops still have seats in the House of Lords and vote on all legislation that they wish to do. All bishops are appointed by the monarch on the recommendation of the PM - one of the reasons why Tony Blair didn't convert to RC while PM as he rightly felt that a Roman Catholic shouldn't be recommending who would be bishops in the CoE to the monarch.

Edward would also have made similar words at his accession council and at his coronation although the formal reading of the proclamation and signing of the document as well happens at the first opening of parliament.

There was some opposition from the RC to the wording of the declaration and I think it was changed slightly by the time of George V but in essence the monarch, who is also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, must promise to uphold that branch of protestantism.

I think history (or at least the books I have read) has viewed Edward VII as a good King, an indulgent grandfather, and an awful husband. Considering that he wasn't trained as much...he certainly had an eye for personalities and was a good influence on international events. But I also think he was more of a consitutional monarch more than his mother......so he was worried about the monarchy's future. I dont' think he would have viewed himself favorably.

I recently read a book (sorry I can't remember the title) where he basically did a George V...saying that the Kaiser would ruin himself within a certain time period...and was pretty much right on the money.

I wouldn't necessarily describe him as an awful husband - unfaithful yes but he never allowed anyone to speak badly about her, always insisted that she was in charge in the household etc. In fact he did many things in the relationship that shows that he was a good husband but not a faithful one. If he hadn't cheated on her but they had also stopped sleeping together he would be seen as a good husband.

I would characterize him as a bad husband and maybe awful. He was in what... at least two scandals because of his straying? And flaunted his last mistress in his wife's face? Yes, she might have accepted it...and they were not a normal couple for so many years, and it could have been the times...but Yes, I think that is an awful husband.

There was one scandal due to his straying - the Harriet Mordaunt divorce case which went against her. He gave evidence and under oath denied ever having had sex with her although he did admit to being alone with her in her house. The other scandal related to his gambling.

I don't condone his cheating but do understand it. He was 29 years old when John died and he and Alexandra were advised to not have any more children.

Alexandra made friends with most of his mistresses based on the fact that she often remained friendly with them and had time with them alone even after the affairs ended. That is more than simply accepting to me.

I do believe that Edward loved her as she loved him. Their love mightn't have been sexual after the early 1870s but was emotional and real in every other way.

I recently read a book (sorry I can't remember the title) where he basically did a George V...saying that the Kaiser would ruin himself within a certain time period...and was pretty much right on the money.

I am currently reading Louis and Victoria, The First Mountbattens and there was a cite to Edward VII saying something about the Kaiser ruining himself. I will try to locate it and post it later. Edward VII and George V, as well as Victoria, made use of Prince Louis of Battenberg's connections to the royal families of Europe and his devotion to the British Navy as an unofficial way to conduct diplomacy on behalf of the UK. Louis and his wife, Victoria, made good observations and very shrewd comments about their royal relations in Germany, Russia and elsewhere which history bore out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

There was one scandal due to his straying - the Harriet Mordaunt divorce case which went against her. He gave evidence and under oath denied ever having had sex with her although he did admit to being alone with her in her house. The other scandal related to his gambling.

I don't condone his cheating but do understand it. He was 29 years old when John died and he and Alexandra were advised to not have any more children.

Alexandra made friends with most of his mistresses based on the fact that she often remained friendly with them and had time with them alone even after the affairs ended. That is more than simply accepting to me.

I do believe that Edward loved her as she loved him. Their love mightn't have been sexual after the early 1870s but was emotional and real in every other way.

I agree with Iluvbertie's assessment. By today's standards Edward VII would not be considered a good husband, but at the time Edward's behavior was accepted and tolerated. Does this mean Alexandra was not hurt by his straying? Not necessarily, but I think she made the best of a bad situation. I hope to learn more by reading the Duff biography of Alexandra. But I did read a book about Louisa McDonnell, the Countess of Antrim, who was a lady-in-waiting to both Queen Victoria and Queen Alexandra. From Louisa's comments, it appears there was great affection between Edward and Alexandra and I think they loved each other, even if their marriage no longer had a sexual aspect or component to it.

We must agree to differ. You and iluvbertie are certainly entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to mine

Just because you are achieving 3/4ths of what a husband is supposed to it doesn't excuse you for not doing the the 1/4th. That's just an example of numbers. Yes, Bertie defended Alex to his mother, his siblings, nieces/nephews, etc but he was unfaithful. Notoriously so IMO.

I would rather have a good husband who isn't perfect in all respects except fidelity rather than a husband who is great in everything but fidelity. If that makes sense.

Also, in reference to the scandals,...I was referring to the scandal regarding Daisy Greville, Countess of Warwick (I would consider that a scandal as the Prime Minister had to get involved) as well as the Harriet case. The other scandal was the Royal Bacarrat scandal.

Agreeing to disagree is what makes the world go round. I certainly agree with your assessment about Edward's merit as a husband but the times were different back then. I am sure Alexandra would have wanted him to act differently but from what I've read (so far), it looks like she loved him, or at least was very fond of her husband.

No, the world was definitely very different back then especially as it pertains to royal or aristrocratic marriages. Certainly people expected Diana to just accept the fact that Charles would and could be unfaithful. So it looks like the mindset remains for some. To me trust and fidelity go hand in hand and its a big thing. If you don't have trust......the rest of it (love, companionship, friendship, etc.) doesn't mean much.

I think Alexandra certainly did love Edward. Didn't she keep his body undisturbed in his bedroom for a couple of days, closed off? It was like...this was the only way he could be totally hers and she didn't have to share him.

I would characterize him as a bad husband and maybe awful. He was in what... at least two scandals because of his straying? And flaunted his last mistress in his wife's face? Yes, she might have accepted it...and they were not a normal couple for so many years, and it could have been the times...but Yes, I think that is an awful husband.